Support for Safe Consumption Sites Among Peer Recovery Coaches

3Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

Safe consumption sites (SCSs), legally sanctioned facilities where people can use drugs under medical supervision, are an effective strategy to reduce overdose fatalities. Peer recovery coaches (PRCs), substance use service providers with lived experience in recovery, are a key provider group affecting SCS implementation. This study assesses support for SCSs among PRCs and identifies personal and professional characteristics associated with support for these sites. PRCs (N = 260) in Michigan were recruited to complete a web-based survey (July–September 2021), reporting their demographics, lived experience, abstinence orientation, attitudes toward clients, training experiences, and support for legalizing SCSs. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with support for SCSs. Half of PRCs (49.0%) expressed support for legalizing SCSs in Michigan. Compared to women, men had greater odds of supporting SCSs (OR = 2.113, p =.014). PRCs who identified as Black (OR = 0.361, p =.014) and other people of color (OR = 0.338, p =.014) had lower odds of supporting SCSs compared to PRCs who identified as white. More stigmatizing attitudes toward clients (OR = 0.921, p =.022) and preference for abstinence-only treatment (OR = 0.452, p =.013) were associated with lower odds of supporting SCSs. Increasing support for SCSs among PRCs is important given their influence on the success of SCS initiatives. Professional training which addresses deeply rooted values and beliefs may help increase support for SCSs. However, policy changes may be necessary to address structural racism affecting SCS acceptability among PRCs of color.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pasman, E., Brown, S., Agius, E., & Resko, S. M. (2024). Support for Safe Consumption Sites Among Peer Recovery Coaches. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 51(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-023-09846-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free